Beides the fact Ridley Scott himself admits it, the script and movie too says he's a rep. Here are some of the hints, some familiar and maybe some new.

1. Too bad she won't live...but then again, who does?

2. You done a man's job, sir!

3. Photos on Deckard's piano, who, btw, doesn't play.

4. Unicorn ending suggests Gaff knows about what memory implants Deckard has gotten. (This is no hint, this is proof!)

5. Bryant is the racist type (Skin jobs. That's what Bryant called replicants. In history books he's the kind of cop that used to call black men niggers). Look again at the scene where Deckard gets briefed. Notice how in that whole scene Bryant looks at Deckard with "disbelief (briefing a Skin Job) but I go along with it".

6. Each species prefers their own kind. In Deckard's case that's Rachel.

I agree with those who think Ridley Scott was deliberately ambiguous about whether Deckard was a replicant.

Having read the original script by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, however, I feel resolved and actually happy that he IS a replicant....

AND, I think Scott missed a wonderful opportunity in the Director's Cut to give our favorite movie a more interesting and meaningful ending. After exploring the themes of human existence, human xenophobia (hatred of skin-jobs), and what it really MEANS to be human, the movie cops to a Hollywood-style, boy-gets-girl ending. Yeah, sure we all wanted them to escape together .... BUT ....

Just think how much more interesting and meaningful it would have been for our couple to not just escape together, but to be the ADAM and EVE of a whole new naturally-conceived generation of Nexus 6 / Human beings with natural life-times, and superior physical, intellectual and moral traits ....

For those of you who may never have read the original script, I am going to paste in below the closing of the tale. This ending supports the above vision, leaves abolutely no doubt that Deckard knows he's a replicant -- AND is how I think Dick would have wanted it to end:

Enormous MUSIC!

Deckard's voice over:

DECKARD (V.O.)
I knew it on the roof that night.
We were brothers, Roy Batty and I !
Combat models of the highest order.
We had fought in wars not yet
dreamed of... in vast nightmares
still unnamed. We were the new
people... Roy and me and Rachael !
We were made for this world.
It was ours!

Trees explode PAST US in a rage of branches as we DIP
and SWERVE and that's when the spinner looms INTO VIEW
zooming RIGHT AT US, then tilting and yawing off in
hot pursuit with Gaff at the controls.

i may have to take back what i had said earier which is that Deckard may possibly be a replicant. to follow the film nior scheme, he can't be, reguardless of what Ridley said. i was more comfortable in the beginning assuming Deckard couldn't have been "the business", according to Racheal.

That hurt! That was irrational of you. Not to mention ... unsportsmanlike.Heh heh...ha ha ha! Where are you going?"

I realize that I'm on a healthy BR community--and with this comes fans the likes of witch Tyrell himself couldn't replicate...but, I stand true to my statement...actually there isn't any truth in my statement about Deckard being a replicant--it's all opinion.

Didn't I read somewhere even Ridley himself suggesting that Deckard wasn't a skin-job.

I didn't mean to offend...I've been a fan for a very long time, and I watch the movie religiously all the time--so take it as an opinion of a well-versed BR follower.

-----as far as evidence to back theories, clearly there are hundres of bits of evidence to suggest that Deckard is a measly ol' human. And there are only a handful that backs him as a skin-job. And I know that's unfair, because after all Nexus is "more human than human"--but either the DC or the actual release never state Deckard as a Rep--to me, it's like the Wizard of Oz / Pink Floyd thing...not happening.

I realize that I'm on a healthy BR community--and with this comes fans the likes of witch Tyrell himself couldn't replicate...but, I stand true to my statement...actually there isn't any truth in my statement about Deckard being a replicant--it's all opinion.

Didn't I read somewhere even Ridley himself suggesting that Deckard wasn't a skin-job.

I didn't mean to offend...I've been a fan for a very long time, and I watch the movie religiously all the time--so take it as an opinion of a well-versed BR follower.

Actually Ridley stated catagorically that Deckard was a replicant. Read Future Noir, by Paul M Sammon. If you don't own it by know you could lose your BR geekdome certificate. There are good arguments on both sides and even the writers couldn't agree on it. I myself prefer the human side of the argument because it makes us question our "humanity" without questioning whether we are "human" or not. By making him "human" and compare weakly to the replicants in "humanity", it forces us to redifine our definitions of "humanity". By leaving the final word ambiguous in the movie it has spawned a debate that has gone on for over 20 years. Making him a Replicant at the end of the movie comes accross to me as a cheap plot twist that could alow viewers to discard any meaning in the movie. bringing up the second most argued topic on here Theatrical cut vrs the directors cut.....I won't go into that...my suggestion would be to read the boards old topics. And by the way welcome to the board. we are glad to have another BR geek here.

Of course I have FN. I don't recall the words, "Rick Deckard is a Replicant." ever coming out of Ridley's mouth though...Hmmm.

Ok, so riddle me this batman, if Ridley says the above statement plain as day--What is this all about--the answer is clearly "YES" he IS a replicant. This discussion is about BR, not DADoES...and if the director said exactly what you say, then why is there such a huge discussion about this.

Now, if we are talking about the world PKD created (if this discussion is whether Deckard the original character is), then that is a different story. A co-worker and I were discussing this, and he made a good point: PKD's approach wasn't the andriod as a man-made creature, but the android's ability to have a lack of empathy--human or not--it's the way we act, feel, and empathize which could label us andriodian (replicant). Think about soldiers, who emotionally become dead--these could be labled as "android" to PKD.

Even if I hear RS say "Rick Deckard is a Replicant" (which I still won't believe until I see his mouth move, and those words come out) I still believe Deckard is human. He has too many emotions that pin-point his humanistic traits.

I don't care if the director threw in stock footage of a unicorn (and re-used it in Legend)--whether the Unicorn scene was shot for Legend, or BR, or whatever--I think this shows that RS blatently tried to create a feeling of confusion. I'm most likely in the minority, but I prefer the Theatrical release...It works better as a film, and I enjoy the VOs.

This is the wrong thread to post all my thoughts, but it seemed the voting sputtered out a bit--so I post it here.

pages 362-364 talk about Ridley's embracing of the deck a rep idea. He has also more recently been interviewed and stated it as fact. Which has pissed a lot of fans and people who worked on the film off. I will look to see if i can find more info on that interview for you. I personaly don't think It should be final either way. I do like the idea of him human better. I find it it says a lot about the impact of the film that people will still argue the concept no matter what Ridley says. People have emotionally invested in the movie and feel passionately about it. all good things IMHO

im gonna state the obvious here: what ridley says doesnt set anything in stone bc every viewer has his or her own unique interpretation but, didn't Deckards glow when saying to rachel "but someone else would" retire her while drying himself off near the doorpost.

thts it for now. im just saying tht even tho his eyes arent usually shown w a replicant glow, tht one scene alone could set things straight.

That hurt! That was irrational of you. Not to mention ... unsportsmanlike.Heh heh...ha ha ha! Where are you going?"

ridleynoir wrote:pages 362-364 talk about Ridley's embracing of the deck a rep idea. He has also more recently been interviewed and stated it as fact. Which has pissed a lot of fans and people who worked on the film off. I will look to see if i can find more info on that interview for you. I personaly don't think It should be final either way. I do like the idea of him human better. I find it it says a lot about the impact of the film that people will still argue the concept no matter what Ridley says. People have emotionally invested in the movie and feel passionately about it. all good things IMHO

What Ridley embraces or what Ridley wanted or intended matters not to me, i only care about if he DID or DID NOT film Deckard in 1982 as a replicant, and i think i read it somewhere that he wasnt allowed by the movie company to do so, so therefore i dont care what Ridley wanted, if he didnt, then he didnt, and i dont see that he did in the 1982 movie, it doesnt confuse me at all, Deck is a human (but yes, in the DC version its pretty obvious that Ridley added that unicorn scene to turn him rep to fullfill he`s ideas)

In the DC Ridley had the opportunity to set things straight--with out amiguity..but he didn't--he left it unclear, and up to the viewer...

If he wanted so badly to make Deck a rep, then he should have been more clear in the story--not shots that can easily be confusing, or misinterpreted. (i.e.--the unicorn, "You've done a man's job", "Have you ever taken the test yourself?") All of those things are so ambiguous...If the script he intended to use, and/or his desire to make Deck a rep was so strong, he could have made it perfectly clear in the DC--where he was allowed to. But he never did...

The Old BladeRunner wrote:im gonna state the obvious here: what ridley says doesnt set anything in stone bc every viewer has his or her own unique interpretation but, didn't Deckards glow when saying to rachel "but someone else would" retire her while drying himself off near the doorpost.

thts it for now. im just saying tht even tho his eyes arent usually shown w a replicant glow, tht one scene alone could set things straight.

I think ridley wanted to portray Deckard as a replicant as stated in numerous threads and articles I have read and observed in the movie Deckards eyes glow in several scenes just like Rachels, and the other Replicants.It is painfully obvious in the scene in his apartment with her.

Still one of the greatest things to ponder anyway and one of the great unanswered portions of the movie.

hey gang,
isnt this all a bit academic? i mean, the artist's intent is usually to inspire the viewer. that is to say that he might have his personal beliefs, but even THAT is not above what the possible truth might be. ergo - Deckard is whoever the hell you want him to be. and think of it this way, if Ridley gave us a ringee-ding manyana and said 'Deckard IS a xxxxxxxx' - perhaps we would have a lot less to talk about. and i have to say - reading this lengthy thread... it is our imaginations, conjecture, creativity, and eye for things that even the director himself probably did not see, that keep this thing alive! imagine him simply giving it to us. we'd lose the keystone - the crux of the discussion. moreover - the TRUTH left us in 82 with the loss of PKD and unless his children bless us with a hidden memo...it is up to us.
no one is wrong, no one is right!